"Clear Evidence of Fraud" in Pfizer's Covid Vaccine Efficacy Study Claims Chief Science Officer
AMERICA’S Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) published an article yesterday on the scale of what they call ‘the Covid-19 injection efficacy lie’.
It centres on the conclusion of their Chief Science Officer, Dr Michael Yeadon (former Pfizer Vice President), that there is ‘clear evidence of fraud’ in the Pfizer study which purports to claim 95 per cent efficacy for their Covid-19 ‘vaccine’. He was commenting on an article published in the Lancet this summer titled ‘Covid-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness – the elephant (not) in the room’ and a recently released documentary which scrutinises the Pfizer efficacy study.
The thrust of both is that ‘fully’ understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, yet depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture can emerge. The article explains:
‘Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR) – ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine – which is expressed as 1-RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95 per cent for the Pfizer-BioNTech, 94 per cent for the Moderna-NIH, 91 per cent for the Gamaleya, 67 per cent for the J&J and 67 per cent for the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines.'
‘However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3 per cent for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1·2 per cent for the Moderna-NIH, 1·2 per cent for the J&J, 0·93 per cent for the Gamaleya and 0·84 per cent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.’
The documentary – entitled Covid Shot or Not? – puts it into plain language: ‘It sounds like it protects you 95 per cent of the time. But that’s not actually what that number means.'
‘That 95 per cent refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).
‘In the Pfizer trial, eight out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed Covid-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting Covid-19 was extremely low, at 0.88 per cent, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04 per cent. ' So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer vaccine in 0.84 per cent.'
‘That 95 per cent number? That refers to the relative difference between the 0.88 per cent and 0.04 per cent. That’s what they call ’95 per cent relative risk reduction’. And relative risk reduction is well-known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. Which raises the question: How many people would have chosen to take the Covid-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1 per cent benefit?’
You can read the full article and watch the documentary here.